• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Every year or two I give Windows a genuine try for around a month. WSL2 is actually pretty decent, it’s a massive improvement on the Windows development experience I had back in 2015 when I tried running Windows full time doing Python/Ruby/Java development. Required cygwin, git bash, power shell, and cmd depending on what I was doing. It was a special kind of nightmare. Lots of native gems couldn’t compile, lots of tooling issues, etc.

    Now you can use exclusively Windows terminal, keep essentially all your development stuff in a Linux subsystem, and pretend you’re in Linux. Integration with things like vscode or intellij is quite decent with the WSL.

    That said, I hate Microsoft, hate the lack of customization, hate the default UI, hate the split between Windows 95-style settings and new Windows 10+, it’s inconsistent as hell. Moving windows across monitors with different scaling still resizes the windows in a very archaic way. You can’t reasonably use multiple desktops because you can’t easily rebind keys to swap desktops without third party software. I’ve changed DEs in Linux for smaller issues than these.


  • Yeah for both Ubuntu and Arch on two separate computers in my house, the process was just install the distro then install steam + Lutris (steam for steam games, Lutris for every other kind of game like League or WoW).

    Installing steam games is identical in Linux and Windows for the vast majority of games. Installing non-steam games is arguably easier since you never have to go to a web browser.

    Honestly the only reason Windows is “easier” is because it’s preinstalled on computers. As someone who has fresh installed Linux and Windows, Linux is miles easier to install. To install Windows 11 I tried following their recommendations (enabling TPM and secure boot in bios), but the W11 installer still didn’t like my 2 year old computer, so had to open up the command prompt, regedit, and add 3 Bypass registry DWord 32 bit values. Then actually installing the O.S you just sit there and wait with an unusable computer. Linux installations have nice GUIs that are far more modern, don’t require weird terminal hacks, and you have a usable computer while it’s installing (you can open up Firefox and browse the web for example).

    \rant


  • Nevoic@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@programming.devGolang be like
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Note: Lemmy code blocks don’t play nice with some symbols, specifically < and & in the following code examples

    This isn’t a language level issue really though, Haskell can be equally ergonomic.

    The weird thing about ?. is that it’s actually overloaded, it can mean:

    • call a function on A? that returns B?
    • call a function on A? that returns B

    you’d end up with B? in either case

    Say you have these functions

    toInt :: String -> Maybe Int
    
    double :: Int -> Int
    
    isValid :: Int -> Maybe Int
    

    and you want to construct the following using these 3 functions

    fn :: Maybe String -> Maybe Int
    

    in a Rust-type syntax, you’d call

    str?.toInt()?.double()?.isValid()
    

    in Haskell you’d have two different operators here

    str >>= toInt &lt;&amp;> double >>= isValid
    

    however you can define this type class

    class Chainable f a b fb where
        (?.) :: f a -> (a -> fb) -> f b
    
    instance Functor f => Chainable f a b b where
        (?.) = (&lt;&amp;>)
    
    instance Monad m => Chainable m a b (m b) where
        (?.) = (>>=)
    

    and then get roughly the same syntax as rust without introducing a new language feature

    str ?. toInt ?. double ?. isValid
    

    though this is more general than just Maybes (it works with any functor/monad), and maybe you wouldn’t want it to be. In that case you’d do this

    class Chainable a b fb where
        (?.) :: Maybe a -> (a -> fb) -> Maybe b
    
    instance Chainable a b b where
        (?.) = (&lt;&amp;>)
    
    instance Chainable a b (Maybe b) where
        (?.) = (>>=)
    

    restricting it to only maybes could also theoretically help type inference.


  • Nevoic@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@programming.devGolang be like
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Here’s an example (first in Haskell then in Go), lets say you have some types/functions:

    • type Possible a = Either String a
    • data User = User { name :: String, age :: Int }
    • validateName :: String -> Possible String
    • validateAge :: Int -> Possible Int

    then you can make

    mkValidUser :: String -> Int -> Possible User
    mkValidUser name age = do
      validatedName ← validateName name
      validatedAge  ← validateAge age
      pure $ User validatedName validatedAge
    

    for some reason <- in lemmy shows up as &lt;- inside code blocks, so I used the left arrow unicode in the above instead

    in Go you’d have these

    • (no Possible type alias, Go can’t do generic type aliases yet, there’s an open issue for it)
    • type User struct { Name string; Age int }
    • func validateName(name string) (string, error)
    • func validateAge(age int) (int, error)

    and with them you’d make:

    func mkValidUser(name string, age int) (*User, error) {
      validatedName, err = validateName(name)
      if err != nil {
        return nil, err
      }
    
      validatedAge, err = validateAge(age)
      if err != nil {
        return nil, err
      }
    
      return User(Name: validatedName, Age: validatedAge), nil
    }
    

    In the Haskell, the fact that Either is a monad is saving you from a lot of boilerplate. You don’t have to explicitly handle the Left/error case, if any of the Eithers end up being a Left value then it’ll correctly “short-circuit” and the function will evaluate to that Left value.

    Without using the fact that it’s a functor/monad (e.g you have no access to fmap/>>=/do syntax), you’d end up with code that has a similar amount of boilerplate to the Go code (notice we have to handle each Left case now):

    mkValidUser :: String -> Int -> Possible User
    mkValidUser name age =
      case (validatedName name, validateAge age) of
        (Left nameErr, _) => Left nameErr
        (_, Left ageErr)  => Left ageErr
        (Right validatedName, Right validatedAge) => 
          Right $ User validatedName validatedAge
    








  • “from a private third party” where? A (non-foolish) socialist would advocate for rules against renting people, just like we’re not allowed to buy people right now.

    That would mean there would be no private third parties that are renting out factories of rented workers.

    If what you’re saying is “from a private third party outside the socialist space”, then that’s a problem for all kinds of socialist spaces. We can’t control productive forces outside of the space we have domain over.


  • It sounds like the market socialists you’ve been talking to haven’t been socialists if they’re in favor of private property, that’s strictly a capitalist position. They’re probably just welfare capitalists.

    An actual market socialist is against private entities owning the means of production, they’re owned communally by some mechanism (be it some democratically run cooperative, the state, etc .) It wouldn’t be a group of stakeholders that are a separate, private entity disconnected from the workers (though the state arguably is an entity like that, and that’s where the line between state socialism and state capitalism gets blurry).


  • I’m a huge anti-capitalist/socialist, and often times I find it useful to use this mix-up of markets and capitalism in my favor.

    When people say “but we need capitalism because the alternative to markets is so bad” I say plainly that I’m not advocating against markets, I’m advocating against classes. The vast majority of self-described capitalists aren’t trying to defend massive corporations or employer exploitation, they’re defending markets.

    If all those pro market capitalists became market socialists, dismantling capitalism would be far easier, then we could have much more interesting discussions about the merits of markets and when to use them versus centralized planning, without a leech class exploiting wage slaves or scalping houses.


  • If you’re not going to spend the 60 seconds it takes to read my comment, don’t bother responding. Nobody mentioned a conspiracy to cull the population, the millions of people who are dying a year from hunger or entirely curable diseases like TB aren’t dying because of some deep state conspiracy, they’re dying because it’s what’s logical in a capitalist economy. These people have no economic power, so they get no resources.

    Similarly, as the economy gets further automated, workers lose economic power, and we’ll be treated with the same capitalist logic that anyone else in the world is treated with, once we have no economic power we are better off dead, and so that’s what will happen.

    The position that “alternative industries will always exist” is pretty foolish, humans aren’t some exceptional supreme beings that can do something special artificial beings cannot. Maybe you’re religious and believe in a soul, and you think that soul gives you some special powers that robots will never have, but you’d be simply mistaken.

    Once the entire economy is automated, there will still be two classes, owners and non-owners, instead of owners and workers. Non-owners will either seize the means of production or die per the logic of capitalism (not some conspiracy).


  • Suggesting an alternative industry as an escape from AI doesn’t work. The media tried this with the millions of truck drivers, pushing them to go into software development 5-10 years ago, as we started conversations around the impending automation of their careers.

    The thought at the time, and this seemed like an accurate forecast to me, was that the tech industry would continue to grow and software engineers would be extraordinarily safe for decades to come. I was already in this profession, so I figured my career was safe for a long while.

    Then a massive AI boom happened this year that I hadn’t anticipated would come for 15ish more years, and similarly AI experts are now pushing up predictions of AGI by literally decades, average estimates being under 10 years now instead of 30 years.

    At the same time, the tech industry went through massive layoffs. Outsourcing, massive increases in output with generative AI automating away repetitive copy/paste programming or even slightly more complicated boilerplate that isn’t strictly copy/paste, amongst natural capitalist tendencies to want to restrict high value labor to keep it cheap.

    Those people who shifted away from truck driving and towards software engineer 4+ years ago, thinking it was a “safe path” and now being told that it’s impossible to find a junior dev position might become desperate enough to change paths again. Maybe they’ll take your advice and join a trade school, only to find in 4 years we’ll hit massive advancements in robotics and AGI that allows general problem solving skills from robots in the real world.

    We already have the tech for it. Boston dynamics has showcased robots that can move more than fluently enough to be a plumber, electrician, etc. Now we just need to combine generative AI with senses and the ability to process information from those senses and react (this already works with images, moving to a video feed and eventually touch/sound/etc is a next step).

    While everyone constantly plays a game of chicken, trying to move around this massive reserve army of labor, we’ll see housing scalpers continue to raise rents, and cost of living becoming prohibitive for this growing class of underemployed or unemployed people. The reserve army of labor, when kept around 5-10% of the population, serves as an incentive for people to be obedient workers and not to rock the bed too much. That number growing to 20-50% is enough to rock the bed, and capitalists will advocate for what they’ve already advocated in the third world, a massive reduction or total annihilation of welfare, so millions more can starve to death.

    We already have millions of people dying a year due to starvation, and nearly a billion people are malnourished due to lack of food access. Raising this number is a logical next step for capitalists as workers try to fight for a share of the automated economy.


  • We have 3 paths forward:

    • liberal capitalist solution (à la Tucker Carlson): ban AI and allow workers to do bullshit jobs
    • alternative liberal capitalist solution: let excess workers die in the streets because they’re no longer needed for production
    • socialist solution: distribute the means of production (AI in this case) so we can share equitably in its output

    I’d advocate for the socialist one, it sounds like you might be more in line with Tucker Carlson’s thinking here?